Case 1400087/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Wszelaki v Caribou — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400087/2022
- Decision date
- 13 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Wszelaki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy an email dated 8 August 2022, the Tribunal gave Mr B Wszelaki an opportunity to make representations on why his claims for redundancy pay, notice pay and unauthorised deductions of wages should not be struck out. The stated jurisdictional issue was that he was self-employed and was therefore not an employee or worker entitled to bring claims under ss.13 and 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Article 5 of the ET (EJEW) Order 1994.
Mr Wszelaki confirmed that he was self-employed. On that basis, the Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims. The judgment does not record any substantive determination on the merits of the redundancy pay, notice pay or wage deduction allegations.
The Tribunal’s judgment is that the claims were struck out. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction because the claimant confirmed he was self-employed and therefore was not an employee or worker entitled to bring the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for notice pay was struck out on the same jurisdictional basis: the claimant confirmed he was self-employed, so the Tribunal found he was not an employee or worker entitled to pursue the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unauthorised deductions of wages was struck out because the claimant confirmed he was self-employed and the Tribunal found it therefore had no jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.